Aziez F.

102 ISSN: 2354-7340

Native

Language

Target

LanguageInterlanguage

AN ANALYSIS OF INTERLANGUAGE PERFORMED BY STUDENTS OF ANISLAMIC BOARDING SCHOOL IN TASIKMALAYA

Feisal Aziez(feisalaziez@gmail.com)

Department of English Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto

IntroductionThe term IL was first introduced

by the American linguist Selinker in 1972to refer to the linguistic system evidencedwhen an adult second language (L2)learner attempts to express meanings in thelanguage being learnt. Corder (1981)stated that this temporary andchanging grammatical system, which isconstructed by the learner, move towardthe grammatical system of the TL. In theprocess of learning a TL, IL improvesgradually until it becomes equal, or nearlyequal, to the TL. However, IL may reach aphase where its development seems to beapprehended. This permanent discontinuityof progress has been referred to as

fossilization which usually occursparticularly in adult learners’ IL system.Based on those definitions, it can beconcluded that IL is ‘in-between languagesystem’, situated between the nativelanguage of the learner and the targetlanguage being learnt, as seen in the figurebelow. This system is gradually movingtowards the TL as the learning processcontinues.

Illustration of Interlanguage

Abstract

This descriptive study aims at: (1) finding out and describe the phonological,lexical, and syntactic forms of English language learners’ inter language, and (2)finding out whether there are any differences in the inter language of the learners ofdifferent grades. The subjects of this research were 24 learners of the first, second,and third grade of an Islamic boarding school in Tasikmalaya. The data werecollected from students’ conversations, interviews, and reading aloud. The datawere recorded and transcribed. Then, the data were filtered by using Corder’sprocedure. The results of the research reveal the existence of the following aspectsin the learners’ inter language: (1) phonological transfers, (2) lexical transfers, (3)syntactic transfers, (4) phonological overgeneralizations, (5) lexicalovergeneralizations, and (6) syntactic overgeneralizations. This research also foundout some differences in the inter language of the students of different grades.

Keywords: inter language, pesantren, phonological, lexical, syntactic, languagetransfers, overgeneralizations

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 103

According to Selinker (1972, pp.216-217), in IL, there are at least fivepsycholinguistic processes commonlyfound in a second- or foreign-languagelearner. These include: (a) borrowingpatters from his/her mother tongue(language transfer), (b) extending patternsfrom the TL (overgeneralization), and (c)expressing meaning using the words andgrammar which are already known by thelearner (communication strategy), d)applying what they have learnt from theirinstructors or textbooks (transfer oftraining) and (e) a conscious attempt bythe language learners to master the TL(strategies of learning). However, he alsopointed out that beyond the five centralprocesses, there exist many otherprocesses which account to some degreefor the surface form of IL utterances.

However, this research focusesonly on two of those psycholinguisticprocesses; language transfer andovergeneralization. Selinker (1972)believes that the way in which languagetransfer happens is that learners make'inter lingual identifications' inapproaching the task of learning a L2:they perceive certain units as the sameintheir NL, IL, and TL. In other words, they'stretch' linguistic units by perceivingthem as the same in meaning across threesystems. Richards and Schmidt (2010, pp.322-323) added that there are two kindsof transfers. The first kind of transfer ispositive transfer. Positive transfer is thetransfer that makes learning anotherlanguage easier, and may occur whenboth the NL and the TL share similarforms. For example, English has the wordtransportation, while in Indonesian

language, it means transportasi. Thissimilarity could help English learners orIndonesian learners to learn the wordeasily. Another example is English andFrench which share the word table, whichcan have the same meaning in bothlanguages.

The second form is negativetransfer, also known as interference. It isthe use of a native-language pattern orrule which leads to an error orinappropriate form in the TL. Forexample, an Indonesian learner of Englishmay produce the incorrect phrase *awoman beautiful instead of a beautifulwoman, because of the transfer of theIndonesian pattern seorang wanita cantik(*a woman beautiful). In another example,an English speaking person who islearning French may produce theincorrect French sentence *Elle regardeles (“She sees them”), produced accordingto the word order of English, instead ofthe correct French sentence Elle lesregarde (literally, “She them sees”).Although NL to L2 transfer has beenstudied most widely, it is also generallyacknowledged that there can also be atransfer from an L2 to one’s NL, as wellas L2 to L3 transfer from one second orforeign language to another (Richards andSchmidt, 2010, p. 323).

Related to phonological transfer,according to Tarone (2001, p. 477), whenlearning the sound system of a newlanguage, learners often categorize soundsin terms of the phonemic systems of theirNL, making acquisition of new TL soundsdifficult. For instance, a learner may haveto decide whether the ‘d’ sound in thenew language is the same or different

Aziez F.

104 ISSN: 2354-7340

from the ‘d’ sound in his or her NL. Thisprocess is called inter lingual identification.This confusion sometimes results in thetransfer of the NL to the TL. Weinrich(1953, in Major, 2008, p. 67) provides aclearer elaboration on phonologicaltransfer by providing various types ofsound transfer, they are: sound substitution(a learner uses the nearest L1 equivalent inthe L2), phonological processes (a learneruses the L1 allophonic variant that doesnot occur in the same environment in theL2), under differentiation (the L1 hasdistinctions that the L2 does not, e.g., twosounds are separate phonemes in the L1but are allophones in the L2),reinterpretation of distinctions(reinterpreting secondary or concominantfeatures as primary or distinctive features,e.g., in L1 German/L2 English a learnerinterpreting English tense/lax distinctionsas long and short distinctions), phonotacticinterference (making the syllable structurein the L2 conform to the L1 syllablestructure, e.g., pic [i] nic [i] in L1Portuguese/L2 English), and prosodicinterference (e.g. producing fallingintonation in utterance final words in L1English/L2 Mandarin).

The transfer of L1 sounds in L2learning cannot be separated from theissue of accent of the learners. Scovel (inIoup, 2008, p. 41) argued that there is acritical period for the acquisition of thepronunciation of L2, becausephonological accent was the only part oflanguage that was physical and demandedneuromuscular programming. Scovel (inBongaerts, 1997, p. 448) predicted thatlearners who start to learn a secondlanguage later than about age 12, willnever be able to attain native-speaker

level in phonology. However, he allowedfor possibility that there may be some‘super exceptional’ foreign languagelearners who are not bound by criticalperiod constraints.

Beside phonological transfer, thetheory of IL also discusses lexical transferfrom the first language (L1). By lexicaltransfer Ro (1994) believed thatidiosyncratic properties of L1 lexicalitems are projected onto thecorresponding TL lexical items. Ro addedthat the word ‘corresponding' in thiscontext means translationally related.Tarone (2001, p. 477) gave an example ofinterlingual identification in lexicaltransfer. He stated that a learner mayperceive NL table as exactly the same asTL mesa, and develop an IL in whichmesa can (incorrectly in terms of the TL)be used in expressions like table ofcontents, table the motion, and so on.

There has been much debate whenit comes to syntactic transfer, and thetopic has been controversial (Odlin 1989,p. 85, in Kharitonova, 2013). Yet a greatdeal of syntactic transfer evidence hasbeen found in studies of word order,relative clauses and negation. It iscommonly known that most humanlanguages have either VSO, SVO or SOVas their basic word order. If English andIndonesian are compared, both languageshave SVO as their basic word order.However, since Indonesian speakingpeople use mostly informal language intheir daily conversation and the focus ofthis research is on exploring IL in spokenlanguage. It is interesting to see whetherthis situation has something to do in thesyntactic aspects of the learners’ IL.

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 105

Beside language transfer, the otherpsycholinguistic process that becomes thefocus of this study is that ofovergeneralization of TL rules. This is aprocess which is also widely observed inchild language acquisition: the learnershows evidence of having mastered ageneral rule, but does not know yet all theexceptions to that rule (Tarone, 2001, p.477). Richards and Schmidt (2010, p. 416)stated that overgeneralization is indicatedwhen a language learner extends patternsfrom the TL, e.g. by analogy. It is aprocess common in both first and L2learning, in which a learner extends the useof a grammatical rule of linguistic itembeyond its accepted uses, usually bymaking words or structures follow a moreregular pattern.

For example, in NL acquisitionprocess, a child may use ball to refer to allround objects. Another example ofovergeneralization is the use of morpheme–s to indicate plural form of a noun, likeusing the word *mans instead of men. Foranother example, a learner may use thepast tense marker –ed for all verbs, regularand irregular alike: walked, wanted,hugged, laughed, *drinked, *hitted, *goed.

The overgeneralization error showsclear evidence of progress, in that it showsthat the learner has mastered a TL rule, butit also shows what the learner has yet tolearn. To the extent that second-languagelearners make overgeneralization errors,one might argue that they are using thesame process as that employed by NLlearners. Knowing this situation could helplanguage teachers in sorting out theirpriority in preparing learning materials.

In Indonesia, English is learnt as aforeign language. In other words, Englishis not learnt in its natural environment(Abbott, 2001). As the biggestarchipelago in the world, Indonesia has721 different languages and dialectsspread throughout the country(Muturzikin, 2007). Most people inIndonesia have at least two languages tocommunicate; a local language andBahasa Indonesia as their nationallanguage. Having already these twolanguages to communicate, the urge touse English for Indonesian learners is atminimum. Even though English isacknowledged as a foreign language,English is a compulsory subject to betaught in almost all levels of education inIndonesia (Lauder, 2008, p. 13).

One of many forms of educationalsystems in Indonesia is Pondok Pesantrenor Islamic boarding school. The termpondok pesantren, according to theGeneral Dictionary of Bahasa Indonesia(1996), refers to a place where santri(students) learn religious teaching. Incontrast with other educationalinstitutions, in pesantren, the santriusually live near the institution to learnIslamic teaching from the kiai or ustadz—the teachers (Hidayat, 2007). Despite itsreputation as a ‘religious’ institutions,many Islamic boarding schools todayhave adopted contemporary educationsystem. This results in the adoption ofcommon school subjects includingEnglish.

In the pesantren where thisresearch was conducted, the students areeven obliged to use English and alsoArabic in their daily conversation. They

Aziez F.

106 ISSN: 2354-7340

use English and Arabic interchangeablyon weekly basis. It means that while otherEnglish language learners in Indonesiahave problem of lacking the chance topractice, the students in the Islamicboarding school have at least two weeksin a month to speak no language butEnglish. The students in the Islamicboarding school come from different partsof the country. Since the institution islocated in West Java Province, Sundaneseis the NL of most students. The rests haveJavanese and Betawi as their NL and allof them are proficient in Indonesian.Uniquely, the Indonesian language andlocal languages are not permitted to bespoken in the boarding school area. Thiscreates a ‘unique’ condition compared toother speech communities that commonlyuse their NL in their daily communication.

Being required to speak alanguage that is not their NL and havingonly limited access to the examples ofstandard use of the languages in theirnatural environment, the questionsaroused on how they ‘survive’ tocommunicate among them. The mostpossible answer to it is the assumptionthat IL takes place in this situation. In his1972 paper on IL, Selinker stated that therelevant data to be used in the study of ILconsisted of utterances produced bysecond-language learners when they weretrying to communicate meaning in the TL(Tarone, 2001, p. 478). The relevant datawere clearly not learners’ utterancesproduced in response to classroom drillsand exercises where the learner wasfocusing attention on grammar rules orTL form. Just as clearly, the relevant datawere not produced with the learner'sreflections and awareness about what was

grammatical in the TL; such data,according to Tarone (2001, p. 478), wouldnot provide information about the ILsystem, but only about the learner'sperception of the TL system—and thesewere different things. Selinker’s andTarone’s statements are clearlyrepresented in the situation in thispesantren. Unlike most public schools inIndonesia where English learner’sutterance is produced in response toclassroom drills and exercises, learners inthis pesantren use English in day to dayuse beside Arabic. This becomes the mainreason why this pesantren becomes one ofthe most ideal places to conduct ILresearch in Indonesia.

The pesantren where this researchwas conducted provides two levels ofeducation, Madrasah Tsanawiyah (juniorhigh school level) and Madrasah Aaliyah(senior high school level). The ages of thelearners in the boarding school rangebetween 13-18 years old. However, thisresearch focuses only on the junior highschool level. Moreover, fossilization isnot discussed in detail here since thelearners in the Islamic boarding school arenot considered as adult yet and thelanguage learning process was still goingon at the time when this research wasconducted. Then, it is assumed that the ILsystem of the learners still has possibilityto move towards the TL. However, thedifferent grades of the learners are putinto consideration to see whether theEnglish learning process in the pesantrencreates different forms of their IL. This isto see the effect of longer exposure ofEnglish language learning process in thepesantren to the students’ IL.

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 107

This research, on the basis ofabove elaboration, focused on theinterlanguage forms of English learnersin the pesantren context. As it isdescribed above, the research tried todescribe the two of the fivepsycholinguistic processes ofinterlanguage, they are the languagetransfer and overgeneralization. Itattempted to describe the learners’interlanguage in phonological, lexical,and syntactic level. Moreover, thisresearch also tried to find out thedifferences of Interlanguage uttered bythe English learners of the junior highschool level in the pesantren to see theimplication of language learning processthat takes place in the institution.

Research MethodThis is a descriptive research and

to achieve the goals of this research,qualitative approach was employed.This research was conducted in anIslamic boarding school in Tasikmalaya,West Java Province. In this pesantren,the students use both Arabic andEnglish languages as a tool ofcommunication in their everyday life.The research was conducted fromFebruary to March 2014.

In total, there were 24 studentsinvolved in the research; twelve femalestudents and twelve male students. Thesubjects’ age ranges between 13 to 15years old. They came from the firstgrade to the third grade of junior highschool. It means each grade wasrepresented by eight subjects.

The data in this research werecollected by two main techniques

suggested by Underhill (1987, pp. 28-36). Firstly, twelve research subjectswere asked to have conversation in pairsabout their activities in the pesantren.Each pair came from the same gradewith similar level of English proficiency.Secondly, the data were collected byusing direct interview technique. Thequestions for this interview were semi-structured which allow the students toproduce the data required for thepurposes of this research. The topic ofthe interview is about their daily activityin the pesantren. Finally, in addition tothose two techniques mentioned above,the techniques suggested by Strange andShafer (2009, pp. 153-191) to explorethe phonological aspect of students’ ILare carried out. The students were askedto read aloud a list of words whichcontains all key sounds in Englishlanguage. According to Underhill (1987,p. 76), this kind of standardization ofwhat each student should say will resultin greater comparability. The soundssymbols reference used in this researchis from IPA (International PhoneticAlphabet).

The data collected wastranscribed and later filtered by usingCorder’s procedure (1981) to decidewhether a learner’s language was anidiosyncrasy or not. Generalizationprocedure was carried out by presentingthe idiosyncratic sentences to theresearch subjects. If the majority of thestudents agreed that the sentences arecorrect, then the forms are certainlyconsidered as an idiosyncrasy.

Once the students’ expressionswere filtered, the next step was to sort

Aziez F.

108 ISSN: 2354-7340

the data based on the categories ofsegmental, lexical, and syntacticfeatures. After sorting the data based onthose features, the data weresubsequently categorized whether theybelong to language transfer orovergeneralization.Findings and DiscussionPhonological Transfers

In this research, it is found out that thereare two apparent causes of phonologicaltransfers. They are the unavailability ofTL sounds in NL sounds and the transferof NL typography. Below are shownsome examples of the phonologicaltransfers found in the students’utterances.

Table 2.Phonological Overgeneralizations

Englishword

Pronunciation IL Idiosyncrasy Data Code

busy /ˈbɪz.i/ /̍ bʌz.i/ ʌ ɪ D46/S1f/Ph/In

introduce /ˌɪn.trəˈdjuːs/ /̩ ɪn.troˈdʌs/uː ʌə o

D90/S2a/Ph/Co

heat /hɪːt/ /heːt/ ɪ e D52/S1g/Ph/Rereading /ˈriː.dɪŋ/ /ˈreː.dɪŋ/ i e D112/S2e/Ph/Infinger /ˈfɪŋ. gər/ /̍ fɪŋ. dʒɚ/ gdʒ D156/S2h/Ph/Rehanging /ˈhæŋ. ɪŋ/ /̍ hæn ʒ.ɪŋ/ ŋnʒ D102/S2c/Ph/Co

Firstly, it is found out that mostof the students were unable to pronouncethese sounds; /æ/, /θ/, /ð/, /ɔ/, /ɒ/. Forexample, the word ‘that’ is pronounced/det/, instead of /ðæt/, by the students.This is due to the unavailability of thesound /ð/ and the sound /æ/ in thestudents’ NL. Another example is whenthey try to pronounce /θ/ sound in ‘three’and ‘nothing’. Instead of /θriː/ and/nʌθ.ɪŋ/, they pronounce it as /triː/ and/nʌt.ɪŋ/. The transfer of sound /ɔ/, occursin one case when a student says the word‘before’. Instead of /bɪˈfɔːr/, she/hepronounces it as /bɪˈpoːr/. Thisphenomenon, according toWeinrich(1953, in Major, 2008, p. 67), is calledsound substitution where a learner usesthe nearest L1 equivalent in the L2.

Interestingly, in the last word,there is another sound that is alsochanged. It is the sound /f/ which ischanged into /p/ by the student. Thephenomenon is apparently shown by thestudents from West Java whose NL isSundanese. It is no secret that someSundanese-speaking-people havedifficulty in pronouncing the fricativesounds /f/ and /v/ and they tend to switchthem into the plosive sound /p/. Thisdoesn’t mean that they cannot pronouncethe sounds, however, they have atendency to change the sounds into /p/when they speak naturally. The changefrom /f/ to /p/, for example, can be foundin the words ‘friend’ and ‘different’.Instead of saying /frend/ and /ˈdɪf.ɚr.ɚnt/,they pronounce them as /prend/ and/̍ dɪp.ɚr.ɚnt/. Then, the examples of the

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 109

change of sound /v/ into /p/ can be foundin when the students try to pronounce thewords ‘twelve’ and ‘very’. Instead ofpronouncing them as /twelv/ and /̍ ver.i/,they pronounce them as /twelp/ and/ˈper.i/. Only one piece of data shows thereverse change; one student changed thesounds /p/ and /f/ in the word ‘prepare’.Instead of pronouncing it as /prɪˈper/,he/she pronounce it as /frɪˈfer/. Thisshows the learner’s confusion whetherhe/she has to use the sound /f/ or /p/ topronounce the word. According toFitriandi (2008), this phenomenonhappens because Sundanese, originally,doesn’t have the sounds /f/ and /v/ intheir language. He believed that thesound /f/ was introduced when Islamreligion came to their land in the 13thcentury.Some findings of the phonologicaltransfers in this study show somesimilarity to the findings of the studydone by Siregar (2008, p. 27). Thesimilar phonological transfers are the

transfer of /θ/ /t/, /æ/ /e/, and /ɒ//o/. Siregar’s study was done in Medan,therefore the transfers of v/ /p/, /f/ /p/, and /p/ /f/ cannot be found in hisstudy because these transfers, as it wasstated before, found where the learners’NL is Sundanese. In his research, Siregar(2008, p. 29) drew a conclusion thatphonological transfers commonly occurbecause the absence of certain sounds inthe learners IL and it is similar to thisresearch.

Phonological OvergeneralizationsAll findings of overgeneralization

in phonology of students’ IL is presentedin the following table. In the table below,it can be seen that there are some soundswhich are overgeneralized in thestudents’ IL. First, some students seem toovergeneralize the letter ‘u’ as /ʌ/ like inthe words ‘bus’ or ‘sun’. They pronouncethe word ‘busy’ and ‘introduce’ as/̍ bʌz.i/ and /ˌɪntrodʌs/ respectively.

Table 2.Phonological OvergeneralizationsEnglish

word Pronunciation IL Idiosyncrasy Data Code

busy /ˈbɪz.i/ /̍ bʌz.i/ ʌ ɪ D46/S1f/Ph/In

introduce /ˌɪn.trəˈdjuːs/ /̩ ɪn.troˈdʌs/uː ʌə o

D90/S2a/Ph/Co

heat /hɪːt/ /heːt/ ɪ e D52/S1g/Ph/Rereading /ˈriː.dɪŋ/ /ˈreː.dɪŋ/ i e D112/S2e/Ph/Infinger /ˈfɪŋ. gər/ /̍ fɪŋ. dʒɚ/ gdʒ D156/S2h/Ph/Rehanging /ˈhæŋ. ɪŋ/ /̍ hæn ʒ.ɪŋ/ ŋnʒ D102/S2c/Ph/Co

Secondly, it is found that some ofthem pronounce letters ‘-ea-’ andovergeneralize it as /e:/ like how itshould be pronounced in the words‘dead’ and ‘head’. They pronounce thewords ‘heat’ and ‘reading’ as /heːt/ and

/ˈreː.dɪŋ/. The last, it is found that someof them overgeneralize the sound ofletter ‘g’, /dʒiː/ in the words ‘finger’ and‘hanging’ where they pronounce them as/̍ fɪŋ.dʒɚ/ and /̍ hænj. ɪŋ/ respectively.

Aziez F.

110 ISSN: 2354-7340

Thus, based on the elaborationabove, it can be concluded that thelearners show evidence of havingmastered a general rule of Englishphonology, but do not yet know all theexceptions to that rule and this confirmsTarone’s (2001, p. 477) statement. It isalso in line with Richards and Schmidt(2010, p. 416) who stated thatovergeneralization is indicated when alanguage learner extends patterns fromthe TL, and in this case they extend thephonological patterns of English.

Lexical TransfersThere are some words that are

apparently transferred from the subjects’NL to English. Some of the subjectstranslated the words directly fromIndonesian into English withoutconsidering the meanings and thefunctions of the words in English. Thefirst lexical transfer can be seen in thefollowing example.

NL : Sekarang, diasekolah diUniversitas Muhammadiyah.

IL : Now, he is school in UniversitasMuhammadiyah.

TL : Now, he is studying inUniversitas Muhammadiyah.

(D44/S1e/Le/In)

The word is ‘sekolah’ or ‘school’in English. According to the GeneralDictionary of Indonesian Language,‘sekolah’ is a noun which means ‘somebuildings or institutions where teachingand learning take place’, ‘a time or ameeting where the students are givensome lessons’, and ‘the effort to gainknowledge’. These meanings are similarto those in English. However, inIndonesian colloquial speech, the word‘sekolah’ can also be used as a verbwhich means ‘to learn/study in a school’or ‘to go to school’ and some subjectsuse this last definition in their IL. As it

can be seen from the examples, thestudents seem to perceive that the word‘school’, which is translated from his/herNL ‘sekolah’, has the same function as ithas in his/her NL colloquial speech.

Similarly, in one finding, one ofthe learners use the word ‘sit’ whichmeans ‘duduk’ in Indonesian. Thegeneral meaning of the word ‘duduk’ is‘to sit’. However, the verb ‘duduk’ canalso be used to show someone’s level ofeducation and the learner thinks that thismeaning also applies in English. This canbe seen from the following sentence.

NL : Sekarang, diaduduk di SMA, disalahsatu SMA di Jakarta, yaituSMA 11 Yadika.

IL : Now, she is sit at senior highschool, in one of senior high schoolin Jakarta, that’s SMA 11 Yadika.

TL : Now, she is studying in one of thesenior high schools in Jakarta,that’s SMA 11 Yadika.

(D85/S3e/Sy,Le/In)

The next lexical transfer can beseen from the following examples:

NL : Kami akan berbicara tentanghidup kita di sini dariawal kamidatang sampai sekarang.

IL : We will talking about our life inhere from the first we come hereuntil now.

TL : We will talk about our life herefrom the first we came here untilnow.

(D1/S1a/Sy,Le/Co)

From that example, it can be seenthat the learner perceive that NLadverbial phrase ‘di sini’ is the same as‘in here’ in English because both havethe same preposition, where, actually, thephrase ‘di sini’ can simply be translatedas ‘here’ in English. It is, of course,grammatically correct to say ‘in here’.

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 111

However, this phrase is commonly usedto refer to somewhere inside a room or abuilding e.g. ‘It’s so cold in here (insideof a room)’. By just using the word‘here’, someone can be talking about ageneral location, not usually inside but itcould be inside.

Finally, it can be found that onelearner use ‘shut up’ which means ‘tostop talking or making a noise’ to replace‘stay’ which means ‘to not move awayfrom or leave’. This is caused by thetransfer of NL ‘diam’. The word ‘diam’in Indonesian can mean both ‘to stoptalking or make noises’ and ‘to not moveaway’. This can be seen in the followingexcerpts.

NL :Kalautidakikutorganisasi…apaya…apaya…diam di mesjid

IL : If not follow organization…whatyes…what yes…shut up in themosque…what yes…

TL : If not joining organization…stayin the mosque.

(D48/S1f/Le/In)

NL : Hanyadiam di rumahsayasaja.IL : Just shut up in my home only.TL : Just stay in my home only.

(D52/S1f/Le/In)

As it can be seen in the abovefindings and elaboration, the learnersapparently translated the words directlyfrom their NL to their TL withoutconsidering the real context of the wordsin the TL. This phenomenon confirmsRo’s (1994) statement which argued that,in lexical transfer, the words in the NLand TL are translationally related.

The next form of lexical transferin the students’ IL is the transfer of NLreduplication. Reduplication inIndonesian language is a process ofrepetition of words or word elements(Chaer, 2007). There are some forms of

reduplication. Phonological reduplicationis a reduplication of phonologicalelements like phoneme or syllable e.g.pipi; morphological reduplication is areduplication of morpheme e.g.mengobar-ngobarkan; syntacticreduplication is a reduplication ofmorpheme which create a clause e.g.jauh-jauh, diadatang; idiomaticreduplication is a reduplication ofmorpheme which create a new meaningwhich is not related with the originalword e.g. mata-mata/spy (mata =eye).One of the functions of reduplication isto show repeating/intense process (ofaction). In this research, it is found thatsome learners use this process in theireffort to produce the TL. This can beseen in the following sentences.

NL : Kami harusmencari-cari air.IL : We must look for-look for the

water.TL : We must look for the water.

(D25/S1b/Le/Co)

NL :Sayamerasasangatkedinginankarenaacaranyasampaimalem-malembanget.

IL : I feel so cool and sleepy becausethe agenda until very very night.

TL : I felt so cold and sleepy becausethe agenda was until very late inthe night.

(D40/S1d/Sy,Le/Co)

In the first case, it can be seenthat the learner uses the reduplication ofNL ‘mencari-cari’ and produces ‘lookfor-look for’ while he/she can simply say‘look for’. There is a difference, however,in the second case. The informalIndonesian phrase ‘malem-malembanget’is translated ‘very-very night’ by thelearner. The reduplicated morpheme inNL is ‘malem’ which means ‘night’ inEnglish. As it can be seen in the phrase,

Aziez F.

112 ISSN: 2354-7340

the reduplicated morpheme in thelearner’s IL is ‘very’ and not ‘night’.Presumably, this is caused by the NLlanguage system which commonly putthe head of a noun phrase before itsdependents, while in English, the head ofa phrase is commonly put after itsdependents. Consequently, instead ofreduplicating ‘night’, the learnernaturally reduplicates ‘very’ which is thefirst word in the phrase ‘very-very night’,similar to ‘malem’ in ‘malem-malembanget’.

Then, the next form of lexicaltransfer found in the students’ IL is thetransfer of NL hesitation device. In thefollowing excerpt of the learner’s IL, itcan be seen that the learner translatesdirectly the hesitation device that iscommonly used in the NL.

NL :Kalautidakikutorganisasi…apaya…apaya…diam di mesjid

IL : If not follow organization…whatyes…what yes…shut up in themosque.

TL : If I am not joining anyorganization activities, I will stayin the mosque.

(D48/S1f/Le/In)

It is clear that ‘what’ is translatedfrom Indonesian ‘apa’ and ‘yes’ istranslated from ‘ya’. ’Apaya’ is ahesitation device of the learner’s NL thatis commonly used when someone iswondering or trying to find a way toexpress his/her ideas. Therefore, as Ro(1994) had stated, it is translationallyrelated.

Those findings confirmSelinker’s (1972) statement that the waya language transfer happens is becauselearners make 'interlingualidentifications'. The subjects perceivecertain units in their NL as the same inthe TL, and in this case, lexical units.

From the elaboration of the findingsabove, it can be seen that these learnersthought that some lexical units in theirNL have the same meaning in their TL.Therefore, the lexical transfers occur.

Lexical OvergeneralizationsThe first form of lexical

overgeneralization that is commonlyfound is the form of ‘pronoun+ to be’.They are ‘I am’, ‘we are’, and ‘he is’. Itcan be seen from the following excerpt.

IL : I am study hard in here to be mydream is come true.

TL : I study hard here to make mydream come true.

(D40/S1d/Sy,Le/Co)

IL : We are queue up in bathroom.TL : We queue up in the bathroom.

(D22/S1b/Le/Co)

In the analysis process, initially,there is a considerable doubt whether thisform should be included in the syntacticor lexical overgeneralization categories.Nonetheless, after looking at some of thestudents’ idiosyncratic sentences whichcontain this form, it can be seen thatsome students tend to replace the first-person singular pronoun ‘I’ with ‘I am’;first-person plural pronoun ‘we’ with ‘weare’; and third-person singular pronoun‘he’ with ‘he is’. Therefore, it can beconcluded that this form is included inthe lexical overgeneralization.

The second finding of lexicalovergeneralization is theovergeneralization of the determiner‘much’ in the students’ IL which showsthat some students are still confused onthe use of ‘much’ and ‘many’. ‘Much’and ‘many’ are used in formal positivesentences. However, ‘much’ is used torefer to uncountable nouns while withnouns that have a plural form, ‘many’ isused. Here are some examples of

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 113

students’ IL where they use ‘much’instead of ‘many’.

IL : The lesson in here is very much.TL : The lessons here are so many.

(D32/S1b/Sy,Le/Co)

Then, pronoun ‘other’ is used torefer to the second of two things orpeople, or the thing or person that is leftin a group or set of things, while‘another’ is used to refer to one moreperson or thing or an extra amount.However, in this research, it is found thatthe learners overgeneralized these termslike shown in the following excerpts.

IL : And if we to be to out to othercountry maybe we to be canspeaking to another.

TL : And if we go abroad maybe wecan speak to others.

(D8/S1a/Sy,Le/Co)

IL : My life in here same with other.TL : My life here is same with the

others.(D9/S1b/Sy,Le/Co)

There, it can be seen that somelearners overgeneralized the terms‘other’ and ‘another’ where they shouldhave used ‘others’ and ‘the others’because in their expressions, theyactually intended to refer to ‘people’which is, of course, consists of more thanone individual.

In the following excerpts, somelearners show that they overgeneralizedthe pronoun ‘something’ when theysimply need to say ‘thing’. In the secondexcerpts, the learner says ‘nothing’ torefer to ‘no’ which means ‘no any’ or‘not one’.

IL : Much something which make medon’t want in here.

TL : Many things which made medon’t want to be here.

(D14/S1b/Le/Co)

IL : Maybe nothing water.TL : Maybe no water.

(D23/S1b/Le/Co)

Then, the next is theovergeneralization of adverb ‘sometime’.It is found only in one data. It can beseen in the following excerpt:

NL : Then, it’s free, butsometime,there’s activities that likeekstrakurikuler.

TL : Then, it’s free, but sometimes,there’s activity like extracurricular.

(D89/S3e/Le/In)

The adverb sometime is used torefer to ‘a time in the future or the pastwhich is not known or not stated’.However, in the learner’s expression,‘sometimes’ is more appropriate sincehe/she intended to talk about ‘on someoccasions but not always or often ‘.

Besides those findings, there aresome words in the learners’ utteranceswhich meanings are extended by thelearners. The first and the most commonword which meaning is extended is‘follow’. This word has many meaningsi.e. ‘to move behind someone orsomething and go where they go’, ‘tohappen or come after something’, ‘toobey or to act as ordered by someone’,‘to have interest in something’, ‘tohappen as a result’, and ‘to understandsomething being said or done’. However,it can be seen from these examples thatthe learners use ‘follow’ to replace ‘join’which mean ‘to get involved in anactivity or journey with another personor group’ or ‘to become a member of anorganization’.IL : So, we are also follow some

organization.

Aziez F.

114 ISSN: 2354-7340

TL : So, we also join someorganization.

(D30/S1b/Le/Co)

IL : In my elementary school, I followmarching band.

TL : In my elementary school, I joinedmarching band.

(D68/S2e/Le/In)

In the following excerpt, it can beseen that one learner use ‘follow’ notonly to replace ‘join’ but also to replace‘enroll’ which means ‘to put yourself orsomeone else onto the official list ofmembers of a course, college or group’.

IL : Yes I want follow to SMA 24Bandung.

TL : Yes, I want to enroll at SMA 24Bandung.

(D53/S1f/Le/In)

The last overgeneralization ofword meaning can be seen in thefollowing excerpt.

IL : When afternoon teh, (I) correctcupboard.

TL : In the afternoon, (I) tidy up (my)cupboard.

(D49/S1f/Le/In)

There, the learner use the verb‘correct’ which mean ‘to show or tellsomeone that something is wrong and tomake it right’ to express ‘to make a placeor a collection of things tidy’. Therefore,in this context, the most appropriateexpression is ‘tidy up’.

The other form of lexicalovergeneralization is theovergeneralization of the use of nouns asverbs. Examples of overgeneralization ofthe use of nouns as verbs can be seen inthe following excerpt.IL : We breakfast before we go to our

class.

TL : We have breakfast before we goto our class.

(D54/S2a/Le/Co)

IL : After that, we dinner.TL : After that, we have dinner.

(D56/S2a/Le/Co)

The words ‘breakfast’ and‘dinner’ are nouns. Therefore the verb‘have’ is needed to talk about performingthe action mentioned after ‘have’. Thenext noun that experienceovergeneralization of use as verb is ‘life’as it can be seen below.

IL : So, I feel so happy I can life inthis boarding.

TL : So, I feel so happy I can live inthis boarding.

(D79/S3a/Le/Co)

Instead of using the verb ‘live’,the learner uses the noun form of itwhich is ‘life’. Then, the last noun is‘job’ as it is shown in the followingexcerpt. The learner uses the noun ‘job’to replace ‘work’ as a verb in his/herutterance.

IL : My mother is job in home.TL : My mother works at home.(D71/S2f/Sy,Le/In)

Then, the next lexicalovergeneralization is theovergeneralization of the use of verb asnoun which is found in the learner’s IL.It is shown in the following example thatthe learner uses the verb form ‘prepare’instead of ‘preparation’.

IL : Yes, that’s my prepare.TL : Yes, that’s my preparation.

(D82/S3c/Le/Co)

Then, in the following findings,the overgeneralization of adjective form

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 115

can be seen. Here, the learner uses theadjective ‘good’ instead of using itsadverb form which is ‘well’. The secondadjective is ‘usual’ which is used to referto ‘get used to’ as it is shown below.IL : So, because of we take enjoy, we

can do every lesson with good one.TL : So, because we enjoy them, we

can do every lesson well.(D34/S1b/Sy,Le/Co)

IL : I can usual to converse aboutEnglish and Arabic language.

TL : I can get used to haveconversation in English and Arabiclanguage.

(D77/S3a/Sy,Le/Co)

The last overgeneralizedadjective is ‘cold’ which is replaced by‘cool’. Both ‘cold’ and ‘cool’ areadjectives. However, they both means ‘ata low temperature, especially whencompared to the temperature of thehuman body, and not hot or warm’.However, cool refer to ‘slightly cold; ofa low temperature’ or ‘slightly cold in apleasant way’. Since the learner tried toexpress a high intensity of the lowtemperature, therefore adjective ‘cold’should have been used.

IL : I feel so cool and sleepy becausethe agenda until very very night.

TL : I felt so cold and sleepy becausethe agenda was until very late inthe night.

(D40/S1d/Sy,Le/Co)

The next form ofovergeneralization is theovergeneralization of conjunction‘when’.Conjunction ‘when’ is found tobe overgeneralized by some learners toindicate time. It can be seen in thefollowing excerpts that the learners use‘when’ to replace ‘in’ and ‘at’.

IL : When afternoon teh, correctcupboard.

TL : In the afternoon, I tidy up mycupboard.

(D49/S1f/Le/In)

IL : When the first, I’m dislike in here.TL : At first, I disliked living here.

(D16/S1b/Sy,Le/Co)

In this research, it is also foundout that the learners are not aware of theplural forms of nouns. It is probablycaused by the unavailability of pluralforms of nouns in Indonesian language.In Indonesian language, for instance, one‘angsa’ or ‘goose’ will remain ‘angsa’even it is more than one while theEnglish word will become ‘geese’. Inother example, horse is horses in itsplural form while in Indonesian language;‘kuda’ will remain the same when it ismore than one. Therefore, it can be seenbelow that the learners overgeneralizesingular forms.

IL : The lesson in here is very much.TL : The lessons here are so many.

(D32/S1b/Sy,Le/Co)

IL : We can get many different culturebut we adapt to be good friend,best friend cause we life here fromabout twenty four hour…

TL : We can get many differentcultures but we adapt to be goodfriends, best friends, ‘cause we livehere for about twenty four hours…

(D80/S3a/Le/Co)

From the above elaboration, itcan be seen that the findings confirmsTrarone’s (2001: 477) view which statedthat the learner shows evidence of havingmastered a general rule, but does notknow yet all the exceptions to that rule.They seem to extend some patterns from

Aziez F.

116 ISSN: 2354-7340

the TL and this is in line with Richardsand Schmidt’s (2010: 416) statement.

Syntactic TransfersIn this research, it is found that

there are partial transfers in the students’IL.

NL : Aktivitassayasamasaja.IL : My activities same only.TL : My activities are also same.

(D5/S1a/Sy/Co)

There, it can be seen that thephrase ‘my activities’ is acceptable in theTL rule. However, it can be seen that theverb ‘are’ is missing and the adjectivalphrase ‘same only’ isidentical to its NL‘samasaja’. In other example, similarpattern occurs.

NL : Mungkin, menurutsaya,membuatkitamenjadibisabahasa.

IL : Maybe, my opinion, make us tobe can language.

TL : Maybe, in my opinion, (it) canmake us able to use the language.

(D7/S1a/Sy/Co)

The phrase ‘my opinion’ isacceptable in the TL and it is notconsidered a transfer from the NL sincein the NL’s pattern, the possessivepronoun comes after the noun beingpossessed. However, after that, thelearner apparently translated directlyfrom his/her NL. In other excerpts, NL’ssentence pattern is fully transferred and itcan be seen in the following learners IL.

NL : Ya, seorang guru bahasaInggris.IL : Yes, a teacher English.TL : Yes, an English teacher.

(D75/S2f/Sy/In)

In this example, it can be seenthat the learner translated every word inhis/her NL sentence pattern. In other

words, he/she translated it word for word.In Indonesian language, in a noun phrase,head word commonly comes before itsdependents and this pattern is transferredin the learner’s IL. ‘A teacher English’,instead of ‘an English teacher’, occursapparently because of learner’s IL‘seorang guru bahasaInggris’.

From the elaboration above, itcan be seen that the NL sentencestructure posed a negative transfer in thelearners’ effort to learn English. Thisconfirms Selinker’s (1972) view that thelearners make 'interlingualidentifications' in approaching the task oflearning a TL. The learners perceive thesentence structure in their NL as similarto the sentence structure in English astheir TL. Therefore, as it was stated byRichards and Schmidt (2010, pp. 322-323), the transfer occur.

Syntactic OvergeneralizationsSyntactic overgeneralization is

the overgeneralization of syntactic rulesor, in other words, the grammaticalarrangement of words in a sentence. Thefindings of the syntacticovergeneralizations in the learners’ ILwill be presented below.

One of the most commonfindings in the learners’ IL is theovergeneralization of present tense. It ispossible that the cause of this is thatEnglish has tenses for verbs whileIndonesian language has no similarconcept. In the following sentences, it isshown that the learners use present tenseinstead of past tense. In the context oftheir conversation, the learners weretalking about the past. In this context, thestudent was asking his/her friend whetherthe teacher was in the mosque to helphim/her memorize the holy book.

IL : Is there the teacher?TL : Was the teacher there?

(D42/S1d/Sy/Co)

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 117

Secondly, the other form ofsyntactic overgeneralization is thedeletion of ‘to be’. In the followingexamples, it can be seen that the learnersdo not understand the function of ‘to be’in the TL.In the first and the secondexcerpts, the learner do not use ‘to be’ intheir questions. In the second xcerpts, thelearners were talking about their pasttherefore the appropriate ‘to be’ that isused in the TL is ‘was’.

IL : How your life in here?TL : How is your life here?

(D2/S1a/Sy,Le/Co)

IL : What club the winner?TL : What club was the winner?

(D61/S2c/Sy/Co)

The next syntacticovergeneralization is the deletion ofdeterminer ‘a’. Determiner ‘a’ is usedbefore a noun to refer to a single thing orperson that has not been mentionedbefore, especially when someone is notreferring to a particular thing or person,or does not expect listeners or readers toknow which particular thing or personhe/she is referring to. In the followingexcerpt, the learners do not use it in theirutterances.

IL : I just have little brother.TL : I just have a little brother.

(D47/S1f/Sy/In)

The next part of syntacticovergeneralization is the deletion ofpreposition. There are some prepositionsthat are missing in the learners’ IL whileit should have been there according toTL rules. The first missing preposition is‘in’. In expressing someone’s opinion,expression ‘in my opinion’ is usuallyused. However, in the following excerpt,

it is shown that the learner doesn’t usethe preposition ‘in’

.IL : Maybe, my opinion, make us to

be can language.TL : Maybe, in my opinion, (it) can

make us able to use the language.(D7/S1a/Sy/Co)

The next preposition missing is‘to’. Preposition ‘to’ has many functions.It is used as a locative preposition whichshows direction. The other role of ‘to’ isthat it is used before a verb to show thatit is in the infinitive as it can be seen inthe second excerpt, like in the followingexcerpt. However, the learner does notuse the preposition in his/her IL.IL : I want study in America.TL : I want to study in America.

(D45/S1e/Sy/In)

The last is the deletion ofpreposition ‘at’ in the prepositionalphrase ‘good at’ as it can be seen below.

IL : …to enter to (school name) to begood language.

TL : …to enter to (school name) to begood at language.

(D72/S2f/Sy/In)

There are some prepositions thatare overgeneralized by the learners.Firstly, it is the overgeneralization ofpreposition ‘at’. Preposition at is used topoint out specific time e.g. hour; toindicate a specific place; to indicate anemail address; or to indicate an activitye.g. ‘I’m good at drawing’. However, asit can be seen in the following excerpt,the learner uses ‘at’ before days. Toshow days, preposition ‘on’ is used.

IL : And at Monday and Friday, afterisya prayer, we usually followpublic speaking.

Aziez F.

118 ISSN: 2354-7340

TL : And on Monday and Friday, afterisya prayer, we usually join publicspeaking.

(D57/S2a/Sy,Le/Co)

The second preposition which isovergeneralized by the learners is ‘to’. Inthe following excerpts, it is shown thatthe learners use ‘to’ after modal verbs‘can’t’ and ‘must’.

IL : Oh sorry man, I can’t to sing it.TL : Oh sorry man, I can’t sing it.

(D63/S2c/Sy/Co)

IL : Here, we must to use well ourtime.

TL : Here, we must use our time well.(D76/S3a/Sy/Co)

Next is the overgeneralization ofpreposition ‘with’. It can be seen belowthat the learner says ‘talking with’instead of ‘talking to’.

IL : We are talking with our friend.TL : We talk to our friends.

(D37/S1b/Sy,Le/Co)

Then, the next preposition beingovergeneralized is ‘about’. In thefollowing excerpt, the learner uses‘about’ when it should have been ‘in’because in the context, the learner talksabout ‘talking in English and Arabic’,and not talking about the languages.

IL : I can usual to converse aboutEnglish and Arabic language.

TL : I can get used to haveconversation in English and Arabiclanguage.

(D77/S3a/Sy,Le/Co)

The next preposition beingovergeneralized is preposition ‘from’. Itis shown below that the learnerovergeneralize preposition ‘from’ whereit should have been ‘for’.

IL : ...cause we life here from abouttwenty four hour…

TL : …cause we live here for abouttwenty four hour…

(D80/S3a/Le/Co)Finally, the last preposition being

overgeneralized is ‘in’. Preposition in isused to indicates a place. However, inthis context, the learner indicates aspecific place ‘home’. Therefore, theappropriate preposition according to theTL rule is ‘at’.

IL : My mother is job in home.TL : My mother works at home.

(D71/S2f/Sy,Le/In)

The Interlanguage DifferencesThe differences in the

interlanguage of the learners of differentgrades provide a picture of the effect ofthe length of exposure of Englishlearning process in the pesantren. Thefirst grade subjects, at the time of thisresearch, had spent their time in thepesantren for at least 6 to 7 months. Thesecond grade learner, therefore, wouldhave spent about a year more than thefirst grade, while the third grade subjectswould have spent about a year more thanthe second grade. The results of thisresearch which have been discussedabove have shown some differences inthe interlanguage of the learners. Thedifferences are based on in which grade aparticular interlanguage aspect occurs.

In phonological level, thelanguage transfers phenomena are foundin all grades. The phonological transfersin the learners’ interlanguage are thetransfers of /æ/ /e/, /θ/ /t/, /ð/ /d/,/ð/ /t/, /ɔ/ /o/, and /ɒ/ /o/, /v/ /p/, /f/ /p/, and /p/ /f/. However,there is something that distinguishes thetransfers of /v/ /p/, /f/ /p/, and /p/ /f/ to other phonological transfers.These transfers are commonly found insome learners whose native language is

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 119

Sundanese. This fact shows that thelearning process has met an obstructionin eliminating the interference oflearners’ NL. This is one of the mostcommon issues in second or foreignlanguage learning since the acquisition ofthe pronunciation of L2 or TL was theonly part of language that was physicaland demanded neuromuscularprogramming (Scovel, in Ioup, 2008, p.41).

In phonological overgeneralization,learners shows evidence of havingmastered a general rule of Englishphonology, but does not know yet all theexceptions to that rule (Tarone, 2001, p.477). In this research, the phonologicalovergeneralizations are found only in thefirst and the second grade learners. Theyare only found in the expressions oflearner S1f, S1g, S2a, S2c, and S2e. Thiscan be an indication that the exposure ofthe language learning process, to aparticular extent, has helped the learnersto minimize the phonologicalovergeneralizations.

Lexical transfers that are found inthe learners’ IL are: transfer of NLwords’ meanings: ‘sekolah’, ‘di sini’,‘duduk’, ‘diam’; transfer of NLreduplication; and transfer of NLhesitation device. Lexical transfers aremostly found in the expressions of thefirst grade learners.

Lexical transfers are only foundonce each in the second and the thirdgrade. This is probably because thestudents of the second and the third gradehave received more exposure of Englishand consequently improved theirvocabulary..

Lexical overgeneralizations, onthe other hand, are found in all gradesand it can be seen in the following table.Although the lexical transfers are foundmostly in the first grade, which provesthat the learners of the second and thethird grade have received more exposure

of English vocabulary, most students stillovergeneralize the English vocabularythat they have mastered.

The syntactic transfers that arefound in the learners’ IL are the negativetransfers of the learners’ native language.The transfer in this level can be found inall grades. Along with the syntactictransfer, the syntacticovergeneralizations can also be found inthe expression of the subjects from allgrades. This indicates that, althoughthere are some clues of improvement inphonological and lexical level, thelearners of all grades still seem toencounter some problems in syntacticlevel.

ConclusionOne of the significant

implications of this research’s findings isto give teachers, especially those in theboarding school an insight to theirlearners’ language. Since theinterlanguage concept is not onlyimportant for the development of thestudents’ grammar system, it will alsohave consequences of the concept for theteachers and their work in the classroom.By studying learners’ IL, languageteachers may gain insight into thelearner's state of knowledge at anyparticular moment and also into thestrategies of learning that the learner maybe using. With this understanding, theywill also be in a better position todevelop appropriate corrective methods.

Secondly, by understanding thenature of English learners’ interlanguagein Indonesia, the policy makers willconsider it in developing curriculum ormaterials especially for English languageteaching in Indonesia. Of course, thiscannot be done based only on a couple ofresearches. Numerous studies ofinterlanguage nature, which is part ofsecond or foreign language acquisitionstudy, needs to be carried out. Revealing

Aziez F.

120 ISSN: 2354-7340

the process of second or foreignlanguage acquisition will require years oflabor and need interdisciplinary studies.However, when language acquisitionresearchers get on with this effort, theresults would be rewarding to disclosegradually the real nature of humanlanguage acquisition.

References

Abbott, G. (2001). English as a foreignlanguage .In R. Mesthrie (Ed.).Concise Encyclopedia ofSociolinguistics. (pp. 467–472).Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Adamson, H. D. (2009). Interlanguagevariation in theoretical andpedagogical perspective. NewYork: Taylor & Francis.

Badudu, J.S., &Zain, S.M. (1996).Kamus umum bahasa Indonesia.Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan.

Bongaerts, et.al.(1997). Age and ultimateattainment in the pronunciation ofa foreign language. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 4.(pp. 447-465). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Broughton, G., et.al, (1980).English as aforeign language. New York:Routledge.

Chaer, A. (2007). Linguistik umum.Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Corder, S. P. (1981).Error analysis andinterlanguage. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research design:Qualitative, quantitative, andmixed methods approaches (3rd

ed.). California: SagePublications.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a globallanguage. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Fauziati, E. (2011).Interlanguage and errorfossilization: a study of Indonesianstudents learning English as aforeign language. ConaplinJournal, Indonesian Journal ofApplied Linguistics, 1(1), 23-38.

Fitriandi, A. (2008). Mengapa orangsundasulitmelafalkanhuruff?Retrieved on July 16, 2014from http://indonesiasejahtera.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/mengapa-orang-sunda-sulit-melafalkan-huruf-f/

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W. R.(2003). Educational research: Anintroduction, seventh edition. NewYork: Pearson Education Inc.

Hidayat, M. (2007).The teaching ofEnglish at pondok pesantrenAttarbiyah Al-Islamiyyah in PaitonProbolinggo. Master degree thesis,unpublished, Universitas IslamNegeri Malang, Malang.

Ioup, G. (2008). Exploring the role of agein the acquisition of a secondlanguage phonology. In Edwards, J.G. H. and Zampini, M. L. (Eds.).Phonology and Second LanguageAcquisition, (pp.41-62).Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Company.

James, C. (1998). Errors in languagelearning and use: Exploringerror analysis. London: Longman.

Kharitonova, A. (2013). Lexical transferand avoidance in the acquisition ofEnglish phrasal verbs: Evidencefrom Russian and Norwegianlearners of English. MA Thesis,unpublished, University Of Oslo,Oslo.

ELT Perspective 4(2), September 2016

ISSN: 2354-7340 121

Krashen, S. (1981). Second languageacquisition and second languagelearning. California: PergamonPress Inc.

Lauder, A. (2008). The status and functionof English in Indonesia: A reviewof key factors. Makara, SosialHumaniora, 12(1), 9-20.

Luna, R. M. (2010). Interlanguage inundergraduates’ academic English:Preliminary results from writtenscript analysis. Encuentro Journal19(19), 60-73. Retrieved onAugust 20, 2014 at:http://www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/Mu_oz_Luna.pdf

Major, R. C. (2008).Transfer in secondlanguage phonology. In Edwards, J.G. H. and Zampini, M. L. (Eds.).Phonology and second languageacquisition. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.

Marsono.(2008). Fonetik. Yogyakarta:Gadjah Mada University Press.

Maryono, A. (2011, September 02).Pesantren students study Englishduring ramadhan. The Jakarta Post.

Mattarima, K., & Hamdan, A.R. (2011).The teaching constraints of Englishas a foreign language in Indonesia:the context of school basedcurriculum. Sosiohumanika, 4(2)287-300.

Muturzikin. (2007). Carte linguistique enAsie : Indonésie & Brunei(Linguistic maps of Asia:Indonesia & Brunei). Retrieved onAugust 12th, 2013, fromhttp://www. muturzikin.com/cartesasiesudest/8.htm

Ogden, R. (2009). An introduction toEnglish phonetics. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R.(2010).Longman dictionary oflanguage teaching and appliedlinguistics, fourth edition.NewYork: Pearson Education Ltd.

Ro, A. (1994). Interlanguage signs andlexical transfer errors.Retrievedon December 15th, 2013, fromhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/cmp-lg/9411018.pdf

Saville-Troike, M. (2006).Introducingsecond language acquisition.NewYork: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Siregar, S. A. (2008). Analisis antarbahasa (interlanguage) padapembelajar bahasa Inggris diPoliteknik Negeri Medan danYanada English Center Medan:Sebuah studi kasus. MasterThesis, unpublished, UniversitasSumatera Utara, Medan.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.International Review of AppliedLinguistics in Language Teaching(IRAL), 10(3), 209-232.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpretingqualitative data. (3rd ed.).London: Sage.

Strange, W., and Shafer, V. L. (2008).Speech perception in secondlanguage learners: The re-education of selective perception.In Edwards, J. G. H. and Zampini,M. L. (Eds.).Phonology andSecond Language Acquisition,(pp.153-191). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.

Tarone, E. (2001). Interlanguage.In R.Mesthrie (Ed.). ConciseEncyclopedia of Sociolinguistics,(pp. 475–481). Oxford: ElsevierScience.

Aziez F.

122 ISSN: 2354-7340

Thomas, D. R. (2003).A general inductiveapproach for qualitative dataanalysis. Retrieved on August 12th,2013, fromhttp://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/Inductive2003.pdf

Yin, R. K. (2011).Qualitative researchfrom start to finish. New York:The Guilford Press.

Zakaria, G. A. N. Pondok pesantren:changes and its future. Journal ofIslamic and Arabic Education 2(2):45-52, 2010.

About author:Feisal Aziez is an English lecturer of the University of Muhammadiyah Purwokerto.